1. Field of the Invention
The present invention generally relates to reactive armor.
2. Background Art
Conventional reactive armor implementations, as known to one of skill in the art, are shown, in some examples, in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,665,794; 5,012,721; 5,025,707; 5,637,824; 5,824,941; 6,345,563; 6,880,445; 7,077,048; 7,424,845; and 7,603,939; and U.S. Application Publication 2006/0065111. A further reference noted, as known to one of skill in the art, is U.S. Army Field Manual 5-250, Explosives and Demolitions, June 1992 (hereinafter, FM 5-250).
In U.S. Pat. No. 5,025,707, ('707), a reactive armor (e.g., a protective apparatus or device) is disclosed that has disruptive material which impinges on a penetrating threat to destroy the integrity of the threat and prevent incursion into the interior of an armored vehicle (or other protected region) (see, Abstract, and Detailed Description at col. 2, lines 39-46). The use of lateral oriented (with respect to a nominal strike face) force mechanisms to defeat projectile threats including shaped charged threats are found, for example, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,824,941 ('941) (see, FIG. 1 and related description especially at col. 2, lines 19-28), in U.S. Pat. No. 4,665,794 ('794) (see, FIG. 1 and related discussion at col. 2, lines 36-57—random orientation of elements 3 will inherently cause lateral forces for some orientations of projectile impact and defeat element alignment), and in the U.S. Application No. 2006/0065111 ('111) (see, FIGS. 12-19 and related discussion in paragraphs [0067]-[0071]). The '111 application also discloses sequenced interaction, as does U.S. Pat. No. 6,345,563 ('563) (see the FIG. and related description at col. 2, lines 51-67), the '707 patent (see description at col. 4, lines 1-11) and U.S. Pat. No. 6,880,445 ('445) (see, for example, FIG. 5C and description at col. 5, lines 15-22). Further examples of substantially lateral force defeat of projectile impingement are described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,012,721 (on FIG. 2 and at col. 3, lines 43-47); U.S. Pat. No. 5,637,824 ('824) (on FIGS. 2(a)-2(d) and at col. 4, line 47 bridging through col. 5, line 7); and U.S. Pat. No. 7,424,845 (FIGS. 1 and 2).
The projectile defeat use of glass or ceramic material that is block, sheet or plate shaped, or round (cylindrical) rod (tube or pellet) or hex shaped rod (or pellet) material are shown, for example, in the '111 application on. FIGS. 2 and 3; the '794 patent on FIGS. 7-9; the '941 patent as element 14 in FIG. 1, the '824 patent on FIGS. 2(a)-2(d) and at col. 3, lines 52-59; in U.S. Pat. No. 7,077,048 as element 140 on FIG. 6B; and in U.S. Pat. No. 7,603,939 on FIG. 2.
The use of sheet (or foil) explosive on the bottom and a plurality of walls of the protective device is disclosed in, for example, the '941 patent, the '563 patent (element 31), and the '445 patent on FIGS. 3, 4, and 5A-5D).
The placement of explosive material in a cross shape is illustrated, for example, in the '445 patent on FIGS. 2 and 3.
The use of a plurality of rod shaped explosive elements distributed within the protective device is disclosed in, for example, the '794 patent as element 5, and the '563 patent as elements 14 and 19. In the '563 patent, the rod explosive elements are implemented in connection with sheet explosive (element 31) at the back of the protective device.
The implementation of detonation cord in connection with other explosive and non-explosive elements by way of positioning, placement, threading, tying, weaving, and the like is illustrated, for example, in FM 5-250, on FIGS. 2-14 and 15, 2-19, 2-20, and 2-27 through 2-29.
However, conventional reactive armor generally presents compromises and limitations in performance, generally manifested as potential hazard to nearby individuals and/or equipment, collateral damage, and the like. As such, there is a desire for improved reactive armor.